So all that stuff about Apple protecting users doesn't hold up to missing out on profits. I thought Apple would have held out longer.

Like—they lost. Held out until when?

I was thinking the way Google didn't (initially) stay in China after being required to censor results. It seemed as if Google at least held out for a while before adapting to 'be less evil'.

Searching the Google story now, I see that this view may be inaccurate[0]. Perhaps Apple has learned from Google's lesson and didn't postpone their decision.

I wonder what would have happened if Apple entirely pulled out of the EU market over the requirement. Would there have been a civil uproar, or would citizens use iPhones bought elsewhere, or a different next phone? Some other companies when faced with a principle eroding requirement chose to shut down the company rather than comply (usually related to encryption/privacy).

[0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/19/138307/how-googl...

> I wonder what would have happened if Apple entirely pulled out of the EU market over the requirement.

If Apple feels that their phones, even with the NFC accessible, is still more secure than their competitors, then this wouldn't lead to them pulling out of the EU, even if they feel it is an overall reduction in security.

I'm a little confused what this means in practice vs what's there now.

I can add a CCard to my apple wallet and make it the default payment method. Does that involve Apple? I can also add public transportation passes and choose which one is the default. Does that involve Apple?

I do get that the Apple CCard itself seems to get special treatment in the Wallet but I'm not sure what else.

Note: I'm for more options. I don't like the idea that Apple and Google are inserting themselves between people and nearly every business. I'm just curious what you all envision seeing come out of this (positive examples)

When you use Apple Pay, Apple has agreements with the issuing banks for those cards and they get a % of every transaction you make.

Having to give up monopoly control over NFC API means the banking apps will probably offer tap to pay directly instead, so Apple will lose some profit.

I do think in the long term, this will mean lower merchant fees for customers, as Apple will lose leverage and probably have to reduce instead of continually increase the % they demand from banks.

Our metro only has Android support for transit cards because Apple want a cut.

Thankfully they haven't given in to stupid whining iPhone users and told them to complain to Apple.

"Buy your mom and android"

Hopefully vendors will implement some kind of universal wallet scheme that supports all options rather than encouraging vendors to only support one that they choose.

Is this only for the EU, or will Apple allow this worldwide? Maybe I missed it, but the article doesn't seem to say.

> Hopefully vendors will implement some kind of universal wallet scheme that supports all options rather than encouraging vendors to only support one that they choose.

Or each bank is going to have their own homegrown, horrible "wallet".

I don't know how French people managed to tolerate the now-dead Kwixo and undead† Paylib, the latter being AIUI phased out for a European "Wero" - didn't know about it, looks like it's German.

† Apparently (Paylib claims) 25+mil ppl have it in France, which is like 30% of the population? With 10mil ppl using it regularly. Somehow it feels like these numbers don't add up as anecdotally I see exactly zero person using it, everybody seems to use either Apple Pay or Google Pay (or whatever its name is these days); so it looks like these numbers are inflated because the service is born from banks and often bundled with bank accounts, even when people don't actually use it. I've had very aggressive dark-pattern-ish communication from one of my banks.

I hope it stays only in the EU. I’m fine with Apple Pay, I don’t want devs to have more access to NFC.

At what point does antitrust become protectionism? The EU loves to make these sweeping mandates in the name of consumer choice, when the result will be a worse product for everyone.

Worse how? It just means devs can access the API, if the customer installs their app and consents that that's what they want to happen.

Apple still gets to be the default wallet, which is a huge, huge advantage, plus they make a boatload on the hardware.

The default wallet if your bank is going to make you install a shitty app when you want to use their debit / credit cards.

This isn't about consumer choice in phones. It's about business access to markets. It's why it's called the "Digital Markets Act".

Won't someone think of the 3.5 trillion dollar company??